= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
James_Miller comments on "Smarter than us" is out! - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (56)
Publishers aren't interested in a book's credibility except insofar as it affects its ability to drive sales. Self-publishing or vanity publishing isn't evidence of inaccuracy or lack of intellectual integrity; it's evidence of being boring, niche, poorly written, or otherwise of limited potential. That's definitely not good news but it doesn't qualify as "Dark Arts" by any means.
(Things are a little different in the academic press, but I don't think that applies here.)
This isn't true because publishers will often hire someone to go through all of your footnotes.
Sure, but that's just editing. Which is one of the basic services of a publisher; they have an interest in catching your mistakes and generally helping you not look stupid, because that sells, but that's not the same thing as being nontrivial evidence of intellectual credibility. Obvious bullshit and pseudoscience gets published all the time, because that sells.
It was a lot more than editing on my last book.
I was hoping the link would be to a description of what your publisher did for you.
Sorry. They hired someone to look at every footnote. If my footnote didn't seem justified this fact checker asked me for justification or had me chance it.